Immunizations - A Matter Of Course Or Choice? Part I & II

PART I

It has almost become a rite of passage. Whether soon after birth, on beginning school, entering college, travelling to a foreign country, or after joining the ranks of senior citizens - immunizations have become a nearly automatic procedure repeated throughout the lives of most people in the modern world. They were devised as a method to protect us from many common epidemic diseases which spread through the population, leaving its victims weakened, crippled or dead. Today, perceived as an act of commonsense, good citizenship and intelligent parenting, they are close to a mandatory exercise, demanded by medical authorities, schools and government.

But there is another side to the issue. Doubts have been raised about the long and short term effects of immunizations. Some types are being associated with the possibility of negative reactions that vary from mild fevers to chronic seizure activity to death. There have been suggestions that perhaps some may have outlived their usefulness.

In the face of conventional medical beliefs and education, any discussion that might challenge conventional ideas concerning immunization no doubt will be controversial. It is precisely because this procedure has gained a widespread, non-discriminating acceptance that I dare to risk raising the ire of some. If one looks at the issue with open eyes, there indeed is much cause for concern.

Inevitably, the question arises as to just what is the effect of injecting a killed or weakened microorganism directly into the bloodstream. Modern medical science states that it stimulates the immune system to create a type of memory in the form of antibodies that will protect the organism when it is invaded by the infecting agent. Although serious side affects are recognized in some cases, it is claimed that the risks involved in contracting the disease are much greater than the risks of getting immunized itself.

Undoubtedly, many lives have been saved through vaccinations. I remember a conversation I had with a physician from China who practiced both western and chinese herbal medicine. I was curious about his attitude towards immunizations in light of his background in orthodox and natural healing. He responded by saying that when the measles came to his town, thousands of children died from it. He was adamant that given the hygenic conditions in China, immunizations were indeed necessary. Under those circumstances there was no leeway for him to contemplate unknown or theoretical long term effects that the shots might have.

While immunization programs have generally been credited with controlling or eradicating many such diseases, some researchers claim that other factors are more important in understanding why epidemics diminish in frequency and virulence. For one, when hygenic and nutritional standards are low in an impoverished nation, epidemics run rampant (as in Peru today). As the standard of living rises in a society, nutrition and hygiene also improve. Consequently, the resistance of individuals in the general population toward a bacteria or virus is greatly enhanced while the spread of the disease carrying agents is checked.

Another possibility is that diseases seem to have a "lifetime". Historically, contagions are particularly active over a certain period of time and then tend to disappear. At a later time, it is possible that another cycle of the same contagion will reappear. Or else, a different contagion will arise.

Long before the implementation of immunizations, whooping cough,TB, cholera, typhoid had diminished dramatically in the United States. For instance, statistics show that in the ninety years from 1850 to 1940, before compulsory immunizations were instituted, deaths of children under the age of 15 from scarlet fever, whooping cough, diptheria and measles had already declined by about 90% (1) On the other hand, "in Germany, where compulsory mass immunization was introduced in 1940, the number of cases (of diptheria) increased from 40,000 to 250,000 by 1945, virtually all among immunized children."(2)

The basic question is whether it benefits us as individuals or as a society to have immunization shots. Although it has been assumed that the positive aspects outweigh the negative ones, the answer is not as black and white as some would like to believe.

(1) James, Walene. "Immunization: The Reality Behind the Myth". (Bergin & Garvey, New York, 1988) pg.25 (2) Ibid. pg. 31

PART II

Everyone would like to to protect their children and themselves from the possibility of contracting a crippling or fatal disease. Immunization shots are commonly held out as our best bet to do so. But, contrary to the commonly held orthodox views of this procedure, there is evidence that such shots may not always be in the best interest of the recipient.

A thinking person will ask two basic questions: (1) Are vaccinations effective?, and (2) Are they safe ? Last week we touched on the possibility that the credit for eliminating many diseases which has been claimed for immunization programs might as well be given to improved living conditions and the natural "life-time" of diseases. That is, there is documented evidence that the virulence of epidemic diseases was reduced by improvement in nutrition and hygiene before the implementation of widespread immunizations in many cases. Moreover, these diseases seem to have a peak period of contagion which gradually reduces overtime without any medical, hygenic or nutritive intervention.

Another piece of research quoted in the book The Immunization Decision by Randall Neustaedter, OMD (North Atlantic Books, Berekely, 1990) suggests immunization might not be as effective for many current diseases as we might expect. For instance, it is possible that the result of vaccinating young children is to protect them from contracting a disease for a period after they are vaccinated but making them more susceptible when they are older. Statistics show that while twenty-five years ago, 23 % of the population over the age of fifteen contracted rubella (German measles), five years ago it was 40%. Richard Moskowitz, MD, in the article Immunizations: A Dissenting View published in various journals, sights a study of an outbreak of whooping cough in Britain where over 50% of the supposedly immunized children contracted the disease. Another study show that 75% of children immunized for measles nevertheless contracted it during an outbreak in New Mexico.

But even if we assume that vaccinations protect a majority of people from a certain disease, the more disturbing question concerns the safety of vaccinations. Is it possible that we are subjecting ourselves and our children to a dangerous procedure? Conventional wisdom maintains that the side-effects experienced by a minority does not outweigh the vast benefits to the great majority of immunized persons.

There are dissenting points of view. Janet Levitan, MD, a Boston area pediatrician, writes in a recently published article (Resonance, Sept-Oct. 1992)," As a pediatrician I have seen a number of children suffering from both the acute and chronic sequelae (i.e. results) of vaccinations....I do not believe that the immature immune systems of the two-month-old infant is capable of responding effectively to vaccines...In addition to the fact that the vaccines many not 'take' well in young infants, I also have concerns about the possible deleterious effects of exposing such tender, young, delicate organisms, our newborns, to such an onslaught of bacterial and viral particles, as well as the potentially toxic chemicals with which they are processed (including mercury and formaldehyde."

What are the possible acute side-effects? These would be fevers, allergic reactions and convulsions. Mostly, these subside without further complications. But sometimes they don't. Joanie Blaxter, a Brattleboro resident, writes of two sisters Laureli and Melissa who "were hospitalized as babies after their second DPT shot, for high fever and meningitis-like symptoms. When Melissa 's son Jamie was eight or nine weeks old he received his first pertussis immunization. His colicy symptoms worsened and within 48-72 hours he was found dead in his crib. The death certificate read "SIDS"." The side-effects of the pertussis vaccination is the most well documented and recognized.

Dr. Moskowitz writes of a three-year-old boy who began to suffer from appetite loss, swollen glands, stomachaches, indigestion and dairrhea two weeks after the MMR (mumps, measles, rubella) vaccination. The child also exhibited "wild" behavior and irregular sleep patterns along with the syndrome. The boy was seen one month after the shot, and Dr. Moskowitz antidoted the vaccination with a homeopathic remedy. His symptoms disappeared in 48 hours.

In my own practice, I have seen, among other cases, a healthy eighteen year old develop acute mononucleosis one week after vaccinations. In another case, extreme exhaustion with anxiety developed immediately after vaccination in a young man. It lasted for nearly half a year until being antidoted by homeopathic treatment. Both persons were forced to take the shots as a prerequisite to enter college.

Next week, chronic effects of immunizations.

Immunizations - A Matter Of Course Or Choice? Part III & IV

PART III

Last week we talked about possible acute side effects resulting from vaccinations. Let us now turn our attention to the possibility that immunization could lead to more chronic, far-reaching and insidious problems. It must first be pointed out that there is no definitive study nor true understanding of the long range effects of immunization. It is not a simple matter to make such a scientific corelation between an event that occurs early in a child,s life and his/her health over the next four or five decades. And, although immunization programs are carried out on hundreds of millions of people around the world, there has been no apparent effort to explore this question by those medical authorities who have the resources to do so. Still, some independent researchers are making correlations from their own observations. Many health care practitioners have worked with patients who have suffered long term ill-effects of vaccinations. I have personally worked with people who have experienced neurological damage that has lasted for years after immunization. I also remember seeing a young child who was brought to the office of a colleague with a seizure disorder. Ever since vaccinations several years earlier, she experienced a convulsion on the order of every 10 minutes. The seizure consisted of flailing of her limbs and a strange cry similar to the braying of a donkey. In his book DPT: A Shot in the Dark, Harris Coulter has documented the severity of the effects of the pertussis vaccination. In a later book, he suggests that vaccines cause many syndromes of brain injury or neurological damage. He postulates that the rise in the occurence of many problems like allergies, dyslexia, autism and behavior disorders could be the result of the wide spread use of vaccination. Coulter suggests a mechanism whereby the vaccination causes an allergic inflammation in the brain which results in neurological damage. Richard Moskowitz, MD, who has also questioned the use of this procedure, offers a slightly different theory. He believes that the introduction of a vaccine into the body that results in the long term presence of latent viruses within the body will create a confusion in the immune system. A vaccination is a method by which diluted disease agents are introduced into the system by avoiding the natural defense mechanisms of the body. They are, in a sense, parachuted behind enemy lines. Without any means to expel these agents, the viruses are eventually incorporated into the cells of the body. This creates a profound confusion throughout the entire organism as to what is actually the organism ("self"), which is to be protected, and what is foreign ("nonself"), which is to be expelled. At some point, the immune system will begin to attack cells within the body to rid the organism of the foreign substance. This results in chronic auto-immune disease. As an example of such a mechanism, Moskowitz quotes the following case. This "was a five-year-old boy with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, whom I happened to see in August of 1978, while visiting an old friend and teacher, a family physician withover 40 years' experience. Well out of earshot of either the boy or his parents, he told me that the leukemia had first appeared following a DPT vaccination, and that, although he had treated the child successfully with natural remedies on two previous occasions, with shrinking of the liver and spleen to approximately normal size, and dramatic improvement in the blodd picture, full relapse had occurred soon after each successive DPT booster".1 The theory presented by Moskowitz is also echoed in a very similar concept offered by a German physician. He suggests that material from vaccines shots becomes attached to the various molecular compounds in the body, creating new, unknown substances in the body. Dubbed "haptens", they are neither "self" nor "nonself". But they have the effect of stimulating auto-immune disease.2 Dr. Robert Simpson of Rutgers University made the following comments in a 1976 address to the American Cancer Society, "Immunization programs...may be actually seeding humans with RNA to form latent proviruses in cells throughout the body. These latent proviruses could be molecules in search of diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis, MS, systemic lupus erythematosus, Parkinson's disease and perhaps cancer." Taking all this into account, suggestions that the AIDS epidemic is the result of a contaminated vaccine was used in Africa over a decade ago may seem more credible. Although all this may be dismissed as speculation, the fact remains that we really have very little idea what this pervasive medical procedure is doing to the present and future generations of humanity. We are undertaking an enormous gamble with higher stakes than were first realized.

1 - Immunizations: A Dissenting Point of View, Richard Moskowitz, MD. 2- Homotoxicology, Dr. Hans-Heinrich Reckweg.

PART IV

Most of what has been presented diverges from the standard views held by most conventional medical practitioners. Yet, I sincerely do not wish for anyone to construe the information presented in these articles as an attempt to dissuade people from vaccinating themselves or their families. It is presented for what it is - information and interpretations of data. It is not orthodox, and therefore will probably incur the wrath of those who are philosophically, emotionally, and/or materially invested in the orthodox view. But it is important information provided us by sincere people who have researched the facts. Just as importantly, it is information that is not distributed at the office of your local family practitioner or pediatrician. The reason why it is not readily available is simply because this point of view is not incorporated into the educational background of orthodox health care providers. Patients sometimes ask me, "Should we immunize our child?", or, "Should I take a flu shot this season?" It is a hard position to be put in because it is such a hard question to answer. All of us wish for a life that is free from disease and suffering. To some extent or other, we all take steps to enhance that possibility. But nothing can be absolutely guaranteed, nothing is absolutely safe. That is the human condition. Vaccinations cannot guarantee anyone freedom from sickness, they offer a choice. On the one hand, a refusal to vaccinate chances contracting a possibily preventable disease. On the other, vaccinating will chance the possibility that there will be either short-term side effects, long-term complications like possible weakening of the body's immune system or other yet unknown problems. The solution? I know what I have chosen for myself and my family. But only you can educate yourself and make an informed choice. There is no absolute black and white on this. Be reasonable and avoid the rigid dogma of either side. You can choose to accept all the immunization procedures, refuse them all, or select the ones that seem most important and/or less likely to cause side-effects. Do not be overwhelmed by the pressure put on you by family, peers or medical and educational institutions. If you do make a decision that does not follow conventional wisdom, be prepared for the possibility that one, some, or all of the above will try to force you to change it. Sounds easy, no? Well, you do have a right to your choice - legally and morally.

Here are some reference sources for information on vaccinations: (1) The Case Against Immunizations by Richard Moskowitz, MD. Short and concise but technical, theoretical information. Write: NCH, 801 North Fairfax Str., Ste 306, Alexandria, VA 22314 Call: (703) 548-7790. (2) Immunizations published by Mothering magazine. A collection of articles with many points of view expressed by professionals and laypeople. Write: Mothering Magazine, POB 8410, Santa Fe, NM 87504 Call: (505) 984-8116 (3) The Immunization Decision : A Guide for Parents by Randall Neustaedter, OMD.North Atlantic Books,1990, Berkeley A fairly concise, user-friendly and reasonable investigation of the facts and non-facts surrounding immunization. Discusses immunizations as a whole or indiviually. (4) DPT: A Shot in the Dark by H. Coulter and B. Fisher. Harcourt Brace, Jovanovich Publishers, Orlando, Florida, 1985 A scholarly documentation of the destructive side-effects and politics related to the pertussis vaccination. (5)The Assault on the American Child: Vaccination, Sociopathy, and Criminality by Harris Coulter. North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, 1990 An investigation into the possible relationship between childhood vaccination and many medical/social problems that plague our society. Fascinating and terrifying. (6) Immunization: The Reality Behind the Myth by Walene James Bergin & Garvey, New York, 1988 A grandmother's personal account of the medical and legal struggles her family faced when confronted with the problem of immunization. Full of facts and anger. (7) How to Raise a Healthy Child...In Spite of Your Doctor by Robert Mendelsohn,MD. Contemporary Books, Chicago, 1984 A commonsense guide for parents on how to avoid the pitfalls of conventional medicine for their children.

Like Attracts Like

Last fall, patient of mine suggested I read a book entitled “Ask And It Is Given”. Never having heard of it before, I looked the book up on Amazon and found that it was just one of a number of books, tapes and videos created by couple named Esther and Jerry Hicks. Collectively referred to as the ‘Abraham material’, this prolific body of work seemed to have attracted a large number of devoted readers who enthusiastically reviewed the book on Amazon. Intrigued, I ordered “Ask and It is Given” along with one other, more recent book by the Hicks. When I sat down to read the book the day it arrived, my first impression from just a few pages was less than positive. The content was repetitive, the language stilted and the sentence structure strained. I began to doubt whether I would be able to get much out of the book – or even tolerate proceeding much further. It crossed my mind that perhaps I had ventured a bit too far onto the turf of the New Age. But, on the strength of my patient’s recommendation and the fervor of the Amazon reviewers, I pressed on.

It was a good thing, too. Because once I got used to the lingo and the writing style, and accommodated myself to reading and re-reading essentially the same thing numerous times, I found the actual subject matter absorbing. The message it conveyed, though not entirely new to me, was of great personal as well as universal significance.

As far as I can tell, when boiled down to its essence, that message comes down to one simple proposition. All of their publications and all of their numerous seminars (it appears they spend a great portion of their lives traveling from one venue to the next in a giant RV) are dedicated to disseminating it, explaining it, clarifying its implications.

That proposition – though the Hicks I’m sure would claim it is a law of nature more than a mere proposition - is that thought creates reality. The same idea can be expressed in any number of ways: thought attracts reality, intention precedes existence, intention brings into being reality, what one thinks is the cause of what will occur… “Ask and it is given” is just another variation on the same theme. All of them come under the rubric of what is called “The Law of Attraction.”

As I mentioned, it isn’t that this concept is original with the Hicks. Not by any means. It has been known since antiquity and found its way into many spiritual and philosophical traditions. In twentieth century American culture, a variation on the Law of Attraction was most famously popularized by Norman Vincent Peale when he preached the ‘power of positive thinking’. Fundamentally, his point was that constructive, affirming thoughts bring about constructive, affirming consequences. Destructive, negative ones likewise bring about destructive, negative results.

But what distinguishes the Abraham materials, what makes them so, well, attractive, is that they are extremely practical. They not only provide a construct by which one can understand why the Law of Attraction exists and the implications of that fact, but more importantly, for me, at least, they also provide a relatively straightforward methodology that assists people to apply it.

It is all well and good to say, “Think nice thoughts and your life will be wonderful!” But the fact of the matter is that we often don’t think nice thoughts at all – and it is difficult to control the ‘not nice’ thoughts that creep into our minds. This ‘don’t think about white elephants’ phenomenon is the insidious side of the Law of Attraction.

If you are looking for a parking spot on a crowded street, thinking about how few spots there are will attract a street with no parking. The same applies to feeling lonely, poor, unhealthy or any number of negative experiences. Unfortunately, most of us have deeply ingrained habits of focusing on what is wrong or missing, and drawing more of the same into our lives.

‘Ask and It Is Given’ gives numerous ways by which one can unlearn some of these injurious habits in order to break this viscous cycle. It really is a matter of habit, a matter practice to train or retrain the mind to perceive what is wanted and not focus on what is not wanted.

When a person is ill, the application of the Law of Attraction can be a bit of a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it implies that on some level people attract illness. I certainly have met my share of people who concern or fixation on their poor health or the possibility of being sick seems to have been a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Yet, it is beyond my level of perception to see how a very young child attracts cancer (or any other significant illness, for that matter). All of us know of active, positive people with life affirming attitudes who have been struck with terrible diseases. In these cases, it is difficult to comprehend how the law applies without reference to concepts such karma or a collective will.

In addition, for some, the implication that this is possibly true will be a burden with its own negative consequences of increased worry and self-recrimination. Obviously, this is the opposite of what the Hicks wish people will take away from their work.

The focus of the Law of Attraction is less on looking backward into the past, and more about being inspired about the future. It offers a hope that positive thoughts about one’s health will lead to a positive outcome. “Ask and It Is Given” is full of practical instructions on how to go about that.

One might, for example, imagine a state of good health, or recall a previous time of good health by focusing on how it feels to be well or the things that one is able to do when well. The essence is to mentally put oneself into a state of experiencing wellness by thought or imagination. This mental - or some might say ‘energetic’ – reality attracts more of the same in the physical plane.

PART II

The ink had barely dried on the first part of this series when an old college buddy of mine emailed to alert me to the fact that an article about Esther and Jerry Hicks had appeared in the Sunday edition of the NY Times (‘Shaking Riches Out of the Cosmos, Feb. 25), of all places.

It was a bit surprising to learn that the esteemed paper of record would take an interest in something so imbued with the spirit of the New Age. But, as it turned out the focus of the reporting was less on spirituality and more on an apparently quite materialistic dispute between the Hicks and an Australian women named Rhonda Byrne.

Byrne is the producer of the wildly popular video ‘The Secret’, which has sold over a million and a half copies and looks like it might be heading toward another million or so. Although marketing of the Secret began humbly enough through word of mouth and the internet, its popularity exploded into the national media limelight courtesy of Oprah Winfrey, who featured it on her show (twice, I am told).

Byrne originally had enlisted Esther Hicks to appear in the video, which was a natural choice since the Secret is really nothing more than a dramatized (some might say over dramatized… way over dramatized) explanation of the “Law of Attraction”. But according to the Times, irreconcilable differences arose between the Hicks and Byrne over the editing, distribution of the video as well as who is deserving of credit for making this information accessible to the public.

In the end, the Hicks demanded to be edited out of the project, a second edition of the Secret was made featuring other experts and Byrne went on to make a fortune. (The second edition is widely available on the internet, going for about $30, while relatively copies of the first edition still can be found usually for triple that price.) Although the Hicks deny financial factors were involved in their dispute with Byrne – their own endeavors apparently have made them quite wealthy, thank you very much - money, or more precisely, the amassing of it, seems to unfortunately be central to the popular interpretation of the Law of Attraction.

The Times article protrays the Secret as the first 21st century incarnation in a lineage of work which it characterizes with phrases like ‘think and grow rich’ and ‘prosperity consciousness. ’ This tradition includes people like Napoleon Hill who wrote “Think and Grow in Rich” in 1930s, Norman Vincent Peale whose “Power of Positive Thinking” appeared in the 1950’s, along with more contemporary descendants like Jack Canfield of “Chicken Soup” fame and Wayne Dyer, writer of “Your Erroneous Zone” and a number of other bestsellers over the last 30 years.

Expressions such as ‘prosperity consciousness’ betray a disturbing interpretation of this entire genre and the ideas behind it. Depicted simply as a means to become wealthy and achieve other forms of material success, they may gain great popularity (and garner wealth for their authors), but they also become easy targets of cynical critique. Most importantly, it misses the depth and subtleties of the principle while ignoring more transcendent forms of happiness and success.

It is interesting that although the difference between material success and contentment has been emphasized in countless ways by countless teachers and authorities for centuries if not millennia, we never really seem to believe it. We all have heard about the consequences of King Midas’s golden touch, but somehow we remain unconvinced.

Perhaps the vulgarization of the “Law of Attraction” is inevitable when it is drawn into the public domain and promulgated indiscriminately. And, my hunch is that this was at the heart of the rupture between Byrne and the Hicks. Not only is there a stylistic garishness to the video that does a disservice to its message, but to a certain extent the Secret is devoid of the actual secret.

It is simple enough to state that thoughts become reality, but thoughts can be very nuanced and have different layers of meaning of which the thinker is not consciously aware. It is not so easy to break habits of long ingrained thought patterns, nor to shape them so as to deliver a sought after outcome.

What the Hicks have spent the last several decades communicating via their books, tapes and workshops is not about money or other forms of mundane success. Rather, they explore the dynamics between consciousness and reality. More fundamentally, it is about understanding that human existence is rooted in a non-material, energetic reality that emerges into a concrete, corporeal world and how, through this understanding, an individual has tools to shape his or her experiences in life.

PART III

The prospect of my oldest child graduating from college and setting off on his own in a few months had me reflecting somewhat wistfully about his earliest days as an infant in Sri Lanka. Soon after his birth on a straw mat on the floor of my clinic in a remote village, we took up residence in a wing of a formerly grand manor on what used to be a tea estate.

The lady of the house, Mrs. Gunawardena, was a garrulous and corpulent elderly woman who had once presided over a coterie of servants and workers, while raising a handful of children. Now living alone and only able to move with great difficulty, she seemed to enjoy the presence of a young couple and their infant, regaling us with stories of the old days when she enjoyed the privileges bestowed upon the upper caste landed gentry, a time when the estate was both productive and profitable.

But by the time we arrived, that world had long since disappeared. Her husband had died, the estate had closed, and her children had gone to live abroad. She had become a relic of a bygone era living off her memories.

Yet within the time capsule of her home, there intruded a few reminders of the outside world. Most notably, a television and a subscription to the interfaith magazine ‘Guideposts’®, both of which she gladly shared with us. While watching old American shows from a village in the tropics on the other side of the world was entertaining and more than a little disorienting, it was the magazine that made the stronger impression on me.

Guideposts, originally created in the 1940’s by Norman Vincent Peale, the Christian clergyman famous for teaching the ‘Power of Positive Thinking’, found its way to Mrs. Guanwardena’s because, like many of her social class, her ancestors had disavowed the indigenous Buddhist faith in favor of Christianity, which was introduced by the first colonial masters of the island, the Portuguese, in the 16th century.

Now, with a touch of missionary zeal of her own, she suggested I peruse her library of current and back issues, that perhaps I would find its content interesting. Having left my Western religious roots years earlier and immersed myself in the study and practice of Eastern philosophy, medicine and religion for nearly a decade, it was not without a touch of condescension that I humored my landlady by taking a few copies back to my side of the house.

Browsing through its pages, I began to be drawn in by the content, surprisingly touched by these simple stories contributed by everyday Americans. There was something both irresistible and ingenuous about directness of first person narratives based on true experiences. Though they were meant to inspire a belief in a Christian God, what I found more compelling was the belief in faith itself and how empowering that was. The power of positive thinking, indeed.

Running through my first stack of magazines, I went back for a second helping and it wasn’t long before I had read through all the back issues and began to eagerly await the arrival of the latest one in the mail. Although during my year at Mrs. Gunawardena’s, I must have read the contributions of hundreds of people, today, over twenty years later, all of them are lost to memory – except one.

It is the account of a young woman who suffered from a particularly aggressive case of multiple sclerosis. Starting with mild symptoms of tingling and muscle weakness, it wasn’t long before she couldn’t walk and subsequently ended up lying totally immobilized in bed. With the progressive loss of her outward capacities, she turned inward. At first she could read and converse, but when that no longer was possible, she was left with only her own thoughts.

At some point, she decided to focus all her attention and energy on prayer. Every waking moment was spent praying to her God for her family, her friends, and for herself. It was sometime during this stage when physically she was nothing more than an emaciated skeletal shell of herself lying curled in a fetal position, that a group from her church paid her a visit.

She had been placed on the living room couch to receive them. They entered the room and stood before her. I don’t recall whether they sang to her or just spoke personal greetings, but in the midst of this gathering, she heard a voice that clearly intoned, “Stand up.” Thinking it to be the minister who stood at the back of the group, she focused on him. But he gave no indication that he had said anything and a few moment later when she heard the same words again, he hadn’t moved his mouth.

In fact, everyone else appeared oblivious to the message she had heard. But after a third, more insistent command to stand up, she decided to act. Getting to her feet, the group parted with mouths agape in astonishment as she began to put one foot in front of another, slowly making her way to the hallway and into the kitchen where her mother was preparing some food for the visitors. Her mother turned her head to see who had walked in and fainted straight away.

It was a spontaneous and complete remission. The multiple sclerosis with all its symptoms had disappeared. At the time of its publication, this young woman, still in her 20’s, was 100% healthy, devoting herself to sharing her experience with church groups and anyone else who would hear it. The Power of Positive Thinking, the Law of Attraction, thought precedes reality – however one wishes to describe the phenomenon, for me this remarkable story is a constant reminder that health is dependent on something more than the state of our physical being.